Netflix in trouble

redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
in Discussion
Who'd have thought, eh? When one of their major investors jumps ship with a $300m loss just three months after investing over $1bn and claiming they were in for the long haul. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61173561

If the share price keeps tanking I wouldn't be surprised if they were swallowed whole. Apple, anybody?
«13456

Comments

  • kodikidkodikid Member Posts: 1,106 ✭✭
    edited 21 April 2022, 2:52PM
    I wouldn’t read too much into that.
    Subscriptions rose artificially during the lock down and are just stabilising. 
    As for losing more in the next three months to July..well even next doors cat knows that subscribers fall off in the hot summer months. 
    Also Netflix lost a fair chunk of Russian subscribers when it stopped broadcasting there in protest at the invasion. 
    Also a big problem for all streaming sites is shared subscription where one bill payer supplies two or three other household's.
    Also if it was swallowed whole as you eloquently put it it would be Disney or Comcast and certainly not apple as I think you're confusing the quality of it's phones with it's current banal streaming service. 
    Deacon Blue hit from October 88
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    Fair enough. But you are confusing the quality of Apple TV+, some of which is excellent, with its limited depth of content. Which could easily be outweighed by the depth of its pockets.  😉
  • kodikidkodikid Member Posts: 1,106 ✭✭
    Ever tired getting the apple app through the playstore or tried to access it on a android device?
    Deacon Blue hit from October 88
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    edited 21 April 2022, 3:00PM
    Don't be daft now. You can use a browser on an Android device.
  • jimbjimb Member, Super User Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭
    kodikid said:
    I wouldn’t read too much into that...
    Did you read all of the (fairly long) BBC news article @kodikid ?
  • kodikidkodikid Member Posts: 1,106 ✭✭
    edited 21 April 2022, 9:46PM
    jimb said:
    kodikid said:
    I wouldn’t read too much into that...
    Did you read all of the (fairly long) BBC news article @kodikid ?

    No
    There was a brief synopsis in the money Mail yesterday, but again one swallow doesn't make a summer. 
    Deacon Blue hit from October 88
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 12:07AM
    200,000 losses out of 23m which is a drop in the ocean. The share market is strange.
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 89 ✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 1:20AM
    Visionman said:
    200,000 losses out of 23m which is a drop in the ocean. The share market is strange.
    Exactly right. 
    This is the standard lazy journalistic stuff one sadly regularly reads.  The issue is actually the opposite reported.  It is that Neflix enjoyed an unexpected temorary injection of unexpected and in a way "free" and unplanned funds from the pandemic a percentage of which will obviously stop. It needn't have increased it's fixed or variable cost base much to accomodate those extra subscribers so to a great degree extra revenue equalled profit. 
    In year-ending December 2020 Netflix, Amazon and Disney subscribers reached 32.4m a substatial increase whereas Ampere’s figures estimated that the UK’s main pay-TV services – Sky, BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk – together lost about 400,000 customers in the same year.
    The great thing about the Netflix business is that it has a relatively low fixed base cost but a manageable and responsive variable cost element being it's content source production costs. It can simply reduce or change the character of new production for a while in some markets  if it really needs to.
    So far as share movements are invlolved they increasingly have less and less to do with perceived current and future value and risk because the vast majority of world-wide trades are algorithm driven by varying degrees.  Even manual trades have timing algorithms.  The problem therefore with much of the automated algorithm trading trigger points is that a disproportionate number of automatic trades are triggered by very few original human judgements but they then set of each others' algorithm trades.  So little judgements make volme trading.  You can't really reliably tell very much these days about the genuine underlying confidence in a business from it's share volume trading as they merely become a starting point to investigate and question deeper.
    I'd prefer to be Netflix than most of it's "competitors" because I like many subscribe and grumble. 
    As others have implied Netflix and others will sooner or later make a judgement call about how they stop "friends and family" sharing and the loss of revenue that would bring against the incremental volume of "new" subscribers forced into buying their own sub.  That will take some rearchand some courage but is probably just a matter of time.


  • RoyRoy Member, Super User Posts: 17,794 ✭✭✭
    The obvious blunt instrument approach to ‘friends and family sharing’ is one account, one IP address at a time.

    Anybody think of any legitimate exceptions to that?
    ‘Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ Wm Morris
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 10:00AM
    Roy said:
    The obvious blunt instrument approach to ‘friends and family sharing’ is one account, one IP address at a time.

    Anybody think of any legitimate exceptions to that?

    No. However, when they stop it (not if) Netflix will still have one account, if not more.

    Its much like SKY which has multiple user accounts. They know it happens and have publicly said so. They'll stop it one day as well. IP being the key. 
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • jimbjimb Member, Super User Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭
    @Jeffuk1 and @kodikid that's all very interesting, but you've not really picked up on the link in chiz's original post.
    The decisions made by Ackman's Pershing Square fund are pretty astonishing (IMO).
    Here's another news story (not from the Mail) which gives a few more details:
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/21/us-hedge-fund-billionaire-bill-ackman-sells-netflix-stake-at-huge-loss
  • kodikidkodikid Member Posts: 1,106 ✭✭
    Oddly the over reaction to the ebb and flows of the market actually makes it harder for Netflix to stop muti household use...it's like the banks charging for using a current account...start doing that and every customer will simply change their bank...Netflix charge and Disney don't....hmmm wonder who would benefit. 
    As previously pointed out it's lazy journalism and a non story. 
    Deacon Blue hit from October 88
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    Hey guys, I expected a variety of comments, of course. But to dismiss the collapse in the share price of the World's largest streaming company by more than a third in one day and nearly two-thirds since the beginning of this year seems far from a non-story, or lazy journalism to me. 
  • kodikidkodikid Member Posts: 1,106 ✭✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 12:51PM
    Yes it's everywhere at the moment..all the newspapers, news channels, you just can't avoid it......not

    It's rumoured that 50% of all account holders share their passwords with other household's and that Netflix might start showing ads on a cheaper single screen only service,  maybe as low as £2.99.
    Considering it's £15 for it's 4k muti screen that's some incentive to ditch the sharing and go it alone. 
    Deacon Blue hit from October 88
  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 89 ✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 1:47PM
    redchiz said:
    Hey guys, I expected a variety of comments, of course. But to dismiss the collapse in the share price of the World's largest streaming company by more than a third in one day and nearly two-thirds since the beginning of this year seems far from a non-story, or lazy journalism to me. 

    You persist in contorting my posts into things I haven't said or you struggle to understand. You manage to contort my posts into meaning the opposite to what I thought I said. I didn't dismiss "the collapse in the share price of the World's largest streaming company by more than a third in one day and nearly two-thirds since the beginning of this year seems far from a non-story, or lazy journalism to me", but simply pointed out how you need to factor in after the early manual intervention in share prices how these judgements  subsequently rapidly become contorted by sudden algorithmic computer generated trades which generates misinterpretations and often ill-judged panic journalism and trades. The algoritmic trades generate more panic selling or buying. That was my point.
    The lazy journalism was as I thought I'd said a failure to point out the increase in revenue from pandemic based sales was an unexpected profit and the subsequent loss was totally predictable.   That was what I had thought I had said, but hey ho ... :(

  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 1:16PM
    @kodikid There has been quite a bit of coverage across the media to be fair, especially considering there are rather bigger issues around. You should read more of that "lazy journalism" you profess to dislike where you would see that "sharing" amounts to around 11% of subscribers. Of course feel free to get your information from rumours instead.  😉
  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 89 ✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 1:31PM
    kodikid said:
    Yes it's everywhere at the moment..all the newspapers, news channels, you just can't avoid it......not

    It's rumoured that 50% of all account holders share their passwords with other household's and that Netflix might start showing ads on a cheaper single screen only service,  maybe as low as £2.99.
    Considering it's £15 for it's 4k muti screen that's some incentive to ditch the sharing and go it alone. 
    Totally agree with your's and Roy's observations. 
    I suspect but do not know that if they bit the bullet and locked in to basic subscription a single live stream at a time then this would enable them to offer exisiting customers either a reduced price sweetener to stay with an increased price multi stream option for thoise that wanted to "share" at a higher than exisitng price. It does rather seem like a no-brainer.
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    Jeffuk1 said:

    The lazy journalism was as I thought I'd said a failure to point out the increase in revenue from pandemic based sales was an unexpected profit and the subsequent loss was totally predictable.   That was what I had thought I had said, but hey ho ... :(

    But that point was made, both in the lengthy piece I linked to and in others since posted.


  • Jeffuk1Jeffuk1 Member Posts: 89 ✭
    redchiz said:
    Jeffuk1 said:

    The lazy journalism was as I thought I'd said a failure to point out the increase in revenue from pandemic based sales was an unexpected profit and the subsequent loss was totally predictable.   That was what I had thought I had said, but hey ho ... :(

    But that point was made, both in the lengthy piece I linked to and in others since posted.


    redchiz said:
    Hey guys, I expected a variety of comments, of course. But to dismiss the collapse in the share price of the World's largest streaming company by more than a third in one day and nearly two-thirds since the beginning of this year seems far from a non-story, or lazy journalism to me. 
    Bewildering.

  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    edited 23 April 2022, 5:19PM
    So Netflix loses 200,000 customers from 24m. Of which there are logistical reasons for. The stock market is strange. 
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    I am pretty sure that the strange stock market has reacted in the way it always does, abruptly. As to the singular point about subscriber numbers there are many others that will have affected this sentiment, I could list them, but they are adequately covered in all the links already posted and with a little further delving. 
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    I thought it was them pulling out of Russia which caused the dip. Which it did.
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    @Visionman That has clearly played its part, but using the same logic you deployed earlier it is a small percentage of the overall subscriber base. There are other fundamentals at play. 
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    OK. Hey, whatever. 
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    Visionman said:
    OK. Hey, whatever. 
    Hey, great point!  😘
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    Have Netflix done something to you or somefink? You are banging on when your irreverent point was made in Post 1.  
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    Hey, as a community populated largely by TV enthusiasts I thought others might be interested. If you're not, feel free to stay out of it. Like subscribing to any service, it's not compulsory to post here.  🙂
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    200,000 out of 24m? Its not really a news story is it? And I am a TV enthusiast.  :) 
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • redchizredchiz Member, Super User Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭
    Sigh. The story was about the crashing share price. Of which the subscriber loss was a small part. I give up.
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,303 ✭✭✭
    You post away mate.
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
Sign In or Register to comment.